ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

viii) It is to be noted that in the case of Vodafone India Services Ltd. 368 ITR 01 (Bom), it was held that share premium cannot be subjected to income and the department has accepted the said judgement and did not file any appeal thereof. Further, vide instruction no. 2/2015 dated 29.03.2015, the CBDT has directed as under: “Subject Acceptance

M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

viii) It is to be noted that in the case of Vodafone India Services Ltd. 368 ITR 01 (Bom), it was held that share premium cannot be subjected to income and the department has accepted the said judgement and did not file any appeal thereof. Further, vide instruction no. 2/2015 dated 29.03.2015, the CBDT has directed as under: “Subject Acceptance

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

56, read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Income from other\nsources - Chargeable as (Reassessment) - Assessing Officer worked out profit on basis of\ncontract and sub-contract income On account of oversight/mistake, he failed to add\ninterest income shown in books as other income - Subsequently, audit objections were\nraised by audit party Invoking section 147/148, Assessing Officer

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

viii) of sub-section (1) of section 36; (ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company Mahima Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur vs. ACIT,(Exemption), Jaipur formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long-term finance for urban infrastructure in India. Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

disallowed by the AO is confirmed. Ground of appeal is dismissed.” 5. Now the assessee is in further appeal before us. The ld AR of the assessee submitted that in this case the sale consideration was received at Rs. 7,00,000/- cash in each case on 09.02.2013, 11.02.2013 & 12.02.2013. Thus a sum of Rs. 21,00,000/- was received

SHRI KESHORAIPATAN SAHKARI SUGAR MILLS LIMITED,KOTA vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

56(i)(ccv) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 defines a Primary Cooperative Society Bank as a Cooperative Society. Therefore, a Cooperative Society Bank is impliedly included in the word ‘Co- operative Society’. This view has been taken in the cases of: 4.4 Other supporting case laws on merit: i. The ITAT Raipur Bench in Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

viii) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. Brigade Enterprises Ltd[2021] 124 taxmann.com 237 (copy at PB page 190-196) it was held that Where Assessing Officer madedisallowanceofassessee'sclaimundersection14A, read with rule 8D(2)(ii) on ground that overdraft facility was directly used by assessee for making tax exempt investments but Commissioner

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS OM METALS SPML INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD), JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallowing certain expenses debited to profit and loss statement of the appellant, being royalty expense, labour, cess, VAT composition tax and entry tax to achieve the said retention percentage. 2.2. Basis the order passed under section 92CA, the AO had completed the assessment under section 143(3) by passing an order dated 11th December 2017 by making total addition amounting

WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CEIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallowing certain expenses debited to profit and loss statement of the appellant, being royalty expense, labour, cess, VAT composition tax and entry tax to achieve the said retention percentage. 2.2. Basis the order passed under section 92CA, the AO had completed the assessment under section 143(3) by passing an order dated 11th December 2017 by making total addition amounting

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act as these expenditure are incurred purely for business purpose and not for making investments. 81. Accordingly, being satisfied with the basis of computation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, the Ld.AO taken a plausible view on allowability of the same which is legally allowed as it is usual that interest free funds would

RATAN TAXTILES P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the

viii) It may be mentioned that in the case of CIT Vs Shri Roshan Lai (Supra), it has been held by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court that the statement recorded under Section 133A has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement cannot be made basis of addition. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 132 of the Income Tax act together. The documents related to dissolution of JV of both of them were found from the premises of both the persons. Both of them accepted that the transaction in question was not loan but an accommodation entry against the settlement of dispute. In fact, some of the amounts as per seized paper

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

2. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,27,68,281/- when it cannot be ascertained as to when the assessee obtained these PAN nos. from the transporters?” The Assessing Officer made total disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

2. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,27,68,281/- when it cannot be ascertained as to when the assessee obtained these PAN nos. from the transporters?” The Assessing Officer made total disallowance

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

2. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,27,68,281/- when it cannot be ascertained as to when the assessee obtained these PAN nos. from the transporters?” The Assessing Officer made total disallowance

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

2. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,27,68,281/- when it cannot be ascertained as to when the assessee obtained these PAN nos. from the transporters?” The Assessing Officer made total disallowance

M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

viii) Holding that the donation of Rs. 76,15,213/- made by the assessee to DAV Trust was expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee; ix) Deleting the addition of Rs. 13,31,39,886/- made by the AO on account of rejection on Books of account in respect of Baddi Unit named Birla

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

viii) Holding that the donation of Rs. 76,15,213/- made by the assessee to DAV Trust was expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee; ix) Deleting the addition of Rs. 13,31,39,886/- made by the AO on account of rejection on Books of account in respect of Baddi Unit named Birla